MBB: Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association

[sac]

I think I'll spend the rest of my day trying to figure out how the MIAA could "win the war" by stopping North Central and Wheaton advancing with only 1 team in the tournament and not being in their 1st and 2nd round pods.

[Flying Dutch Fan]

I think I'll spend the rest of my day trying to figure out how the MIAA could "win the war" by stopping North Central and Wheaton advancing with only 1 team in the tournament and not being in their 1st and 2nd round pods.

Probably has something to do with the lack of in-region games we played.  Had we played more of them, that alone would have eliminated NC and Wheaton (didn't we kind of "eliminate" them in December) 

[Knight2Day]

Unless MIAA teams upgrade their non-conference schedules to get a taste of high level competition, they will "underachieve" when they play battle tested teams against the CCIW or WIAC.  There is a reason that IWU has now won six consecutive regional round games against number one or two nationally ranked teams--all on the road.  This helps to explain why three CCIW teams are in the round of 16, including third place IWU.  Teams like IWU may not have the best win-loss records, but they have been through the wars with numerous competitive games and are prepared for strong competition.  Hope certainly was good, but they would be so much better if they had been challenged more during the regular season, beyond a single game with WMU.

Pretty sure Hope's schedule strength at the end of non-conference play was at or near #1 by massey, taking out the WMU game it was still top 15.

PS   The MIAA has been to the Final Four more times than the CCIW since 2000 and again since 1990.  Thanks for the advice though.

Sac, pretty sure that the MIAA of 2012 is not anywhere close to the MIAA of 1990, 2000, or 2005 (when it had 3 teams in the top 25).....the CCIW is definitely one of the premier conferences in the country now, and as has been evidenced, there's a reason that there's 3 CCIW teams in the round of 16

[Happy Calvin Guy]

2011-12 MIAA Dunk Leaders

Team:
Hope 19
Trine 14
Calvin 10
Albion 9
Alma 8
Kalamazoo 5
Adrian 4
Olivet 0

Individual:
Tommy Erickson, Alma 8
Scott Rogers, Trine 8
Mike Smith, Albion 7
Nate Van Arendonk, Hope 7
Joe Prepolec, Kalamazoo 5
Tyler Dykstra, Calvin 4
Josh Holwerda, Hope 4
Tim Pearcy, Trine 4
Nate Van Eck, Calvin 3
Peter Bunn, Hope 2
Sean Gallant, Adrian 2
Ian Jackson, Trine 2
Tyler Kruis, Calvin 2
Colton Overway, Hope 2
Nate Snuggerud, Hope 2
Carter Elliott, Albion 1
Dennis Mason, Adrian 1
Adam Meier, Adrian 1
Logan Neil, Hope 1
Bryan Powell, Calvin 1(!)
Billy Seiler, Hope 1
Leon Wernette-Leff, Albion 1

Seven different Dutchmen threw one down this year, that might be a record.   

[formerd3db]

3 -- Faculty Senate: "no"

Doesn't surprise me at all.  I've heard an overwhelming majority of faculty has been against the football idea from the start of the feasibility study.

Calvin's Faculty Senate voting "no" on football is one of the least drama filled votes in human history, the equivalant of wondering whether San Francisco will send a Democrat or Ottawa County a Republican to Congress.

Correct.  It was known long ago that they would vote this way.  The real vote comes in May as KS said.

So the real question now becomes:  If you are a member of the board of trustees are you going to vote in favor of football over the objections of the faculty senate?   Doesn't seem like a winning hand for the trustees.  With a new Pres. coming on board, and a recent history of a "less than happy faculty" who needs the grief of further alienating a significant campus public.
Smart money would say table it for a couple years and revisit in 2014 or 2015.

realist:

I have to totally disagree with you on this one.  The "smart $" would then be to fire the current faculty and hire those who have the sense to support it.   People have to be honest here...there are simply "football haters" at Calvin as well as acknowledging the simple truth that there is no reason why football at any college cannot be successful and co-exist with the academic mission.  President Hutchins at the University of Chicago got it all wrong way back then in 1939 and that mis-guided philosophy continues today at some places, as evidenced by the Swarthemore debacle back in 2000 (even the University of Chicago, among the elite, respected and highest academic insitutions in the country no longer suscribes to that mis-guided philosophy and has had a successful DIII football program in its "new era", totally having academics and athletics co-existing in a highly successful atmosphere - the administration there in the past couple of decades, who have been very highly academic personnel, support the football program and have seen it as a very positive and "plus" for the world renowed university and among its peers/colleagues).  No one will ever convince me otherwise (that this can't work) because it simply is just not true - I know because I "lived it" as did many others themselves and who can testify to this. This type of "tug of war" between academic faculty and those (including students) who support athletics (and football specifically) goes all the way back to the beginnings of collegiate football (recall that famed, but ill-thought out comment that Cornell's President said back in the 1890's when he prevented Cornell's team from playing at the Univ. of Michigan..."I refuse to allow the [the students] to travel 400 miles west to merely aggitate a bag of wind"..? .  Seriously, though, the bottom line is that if Calvin's new administration and their trustees (and there have been trustees there who have been in the "non-football support" camp for a long time as most of us know) don't want to take the leadership role in this and make the decision and "buck" the so-called tradition there, then it obviously won't happen and most likely never will.  I'm sure that not all the faculty at Calvin are football haters (I know for a fact they are not), however, the greater number seem to be, as has been reported/shared by many here.  As I and others have said before, if Calvin doesn't add football now, I seriously doubt they ever will and that will be a disappointing aspect, however, of course, their perogative and rights.

One final comment; if one is going to have that kind of attitude towards football, why have any sports at all?  Moreover, why then, have they even allowed lacrosse and hockey (albeit club sports, but let's be honest here also in that those are in essence collegiate sports i.e. virtual varsity and have been in the way they have been run)?  I realize there may be many who disagree with my opinion on this situation and I respect that.  Nonetheless, it otherwise makes no sense at all - football simply would not trump the academic mission and high academic standards at Calvin which they desire to maintain.  It has been proven by many other colleges/universities.  I think this has been discussed extensively here and many legit concerns on both sides of the issue and, as such, I really don't have anything else to add to what what has been brought up and discussed many times on all aspects pertaining to this topic - again just sharing my opinion on this.  

[Roundball999]

I agree.  The idea that football would somehow negate academic mission and high academic standards is a smoke screen and is a non-issue for anyone who cares enough to pull their head out of the sand.  There are many, many schools that are frankly of much higher academic caliber/rigor than Calvin or any other MIAA school, from D3 to D1, that have had successful football programs for many years.

[NCF]

3 -- Faculty Senate: "no"

Doesn't surprise me at all.  I've heard an overwhelming majority of faculty has been against the football idea from the start of the feasibility study.

Calvin's Faculty Senate voting "no" on football is one of the least drama filled votes in human history, the equivalant of wondering whether San Francisco will send a Democrat or Ottawa County a Republican to Congress.

Correct.  It was known long ago that they would vote this way.  The real vote comes in May as KS said.

So the real question now becomes:  If you are a member of the board of trustees are you going to vote in favor of football over the objections of the faculty senate?   Doesn't seem like a winning hand for the trustees.  With a new Pres. coming on board, and a recent history of a "less than happy faculty" who needs the grief of further alienating a significant campus public.
Smart money would say table it for a couple years and revisit in 2014 or 2015.

realist:

I have to totally disagree with you on this one.  The "smart $" would then be to fire the current faculty and hire those who have the sense to support it.   People have to be honest here...there are simply "football haters" at Calvin as well as acknowledging the simple truth that there is no reason why football at any college cannot be successful and co-exist with the academic mission.  President Hutchins at the University of Chicago got it wrong way back then in 1939 and that mis-guided philosophy continues today at some places, as evidenced by the Swarthemore debacle back in 2000.  No one will ever convince me otherwise because it simply is just not true - I know because I "lived it" as did many others themselves and who can testify to this. This type of "tug of war" between academic faculty and those (including students) who support athletics (and football specifically) goes all the way back to the beginnings of collegiate football (recall that famed, but ill-thought out comment that Cornell's President said back in the 1890's when he prevented Cornell's team from playing at the Univ. of Michigan..."I refuse to allow the [the students] to travel 400 miles west to merely aggitate a bag of wind"..? .  Seriously, though, the bottom line is that if Calvin's new administration and their trustees (and there have been trustees there who have been in the "non-football support" camp for a long time as most of us know) don't want to take the leadership role in this and make the decision and "buck" the so-called tradition there, then it obviously won't happen and most likely never will.  I'm sure that not all the faculty at Calvin are football haters (I know for a fact they are not), however, the greater number seem to be, as has been reported/shared by many here.  As I and others have said before, if Calvin doesn't add football now, I seriously doubt they ever will and that will be a disappointing aspect, however, of course, their perogative and rights.

One final comment; if one is going to have that kind of attitude towards football, why have any sports at all?  Moreover, why then, have they even allowed lacrosse and hockey (albeit club sports, but let's be honest here also in that those are in essence collegiate sports i.e. virtual varsity and have been in the way they have been run)?  I realize there may be many who disagree with my opinion on this situation and I respect that.  Nonetheless, it otherwise makes no sense at all - football simply would not trump the academic mission and high academic standards at Calvin which they desire to maintain.  It has been proven by many other colleges/universities.  I think this has been discussed extensively here and many legit concerns on both sides of the issue and, as such, I really don't have anything else to add ort that hasn't been brought up and discussed many times on all aspect - again just sharing my opinion on this.

The bottom line is that many "academic thinkers" are of the opinion that football players are DUMB Jocks. That does not have to be the case IF a college does not lower their admission standards for any athletes. My son still has professors that cannot believe he is a two-sport athlete with the grades he has. Even funnier is that his academic advisor (also his professor for several classes as well) did not even know he was on the football team until late in the season this year. Football does not have to destroy the "academic climate", in fact, good students will work harder during the season to keep their grades up. Good students can still be good athletes and help build a successful football/athletic  program if given the chance.

[Flying Dutch Fan]

I've heard from multiple student-athletes that the school work is harder in the off-season, due to having more free time - leading to procrastination.  During the season, there is only a limited amount of time for studies, and that's mostly what it gets used for.

[NCF]

I've heard from multiple student-athletes that the school work is harder in the off-season, due to having more free time - leading to procrastination.  During the season, there is only a limited amount of time for studies, and that's mostly what it gets used for.

very true!

[sac]

Unless MIAA teams upgrade their non-conference schedules to get a taste of high level competition, they will "underachieve" when they play battle tested teams against the CCIW or WIAC.  There is a reason that IWU has now won six consecutive regional round games against number one or two nationally ranked teams--all on the road.  This helps to explain why three CCIW teams are in the round of 16, including third place IWU.  Teams like IWU may not have the best win-loss records, but they have been through the wars with numerous competitive games and are prepared for strong competition.  Hope certainly was good, but they would be so much better if they had been challenged more during the regular season, beyond a single game with WMU.

Pretty sure Hope's schedule strength at the end of non-conference play was at or near #1 by massey, taking out the WMU game it was still top 15.

PS   The MIAA has been to the Final Four more times than the CCIW since 2000 and again since 1990.  Thanks for the advice though.

Sac, pretty sure that the MIAA of 2012 is not anywhere close to the MIAA of 1990, 2000, or 2005 (when it had 3 teams in the top 25).....the CCIW is definitely one of the premier conferences in the country now, and as has been evidenced, there's a reason that there's 3 CCIW teams in the round of 16

Thanks, I'm kind of aware of the CCIW's prowess.  I think your irony detector might not be working.

[realist]

Formerd3db, et al.  With all due respect.  My post was simply addressed to a very real  "political" situation that now faces the Calvin board of Trustees. 
Every college or university has it's own set of political games, and players.  I am familiar with the "politics" at Calvin.  Are you?  You might disagree with them, and you might think they are weird, or outdated or naive, but they are what they are.
 
I don't know why any one of the faculty or the faculty collectively did not endorse football.  Knowing some of them I give them credit for listening to the findings, and recommendations, and than making their decision.  I am sure if you or I asked them personally they would share their thoughts. 
My comment was simply addressed to political reality.  Cram football down the faculty/staff's throat, and you will creatte a very negative work environment.  "If I were a trustee", I would think long and hard about going against the faculty senate.
I am not sure how other college's might work, but doubt few of them give the pres. dictatorial powers to "fire the current faculty", and cram football down people's throat.
That just isn't the way Calvin has worked in the past, and doubt it is going to work that way going forward.
FWIW:  Personally I would like to see football at Calvin, but don't think it should be imposed on a faculty that isn't supportive.

[KnightSlappy]

realist:

I have to totally disagree with you on this one.

That one's going in my sig.

The "smart $" would then be to fire the current faculty and hire those who have the sense to support it.   People have to be honest here...there are simply "football haters" at Calvin as well as acknowledging the simple truth that there is no reason why football at any college cannot be successful and co-exist with the academic mission.  President Hutchins at the University of Chicago got it all wrong way back then in 1939 and that mis-guided philosophy continues today at some places, as evidenced by the Swarthemore debacle back in 2000 (even the University of Chicago, among the elite, respected and highest academic insitutions in the country no longer suscribes to that mis-guided philosophy and has had a successful DIII football program in its "new era", totally having academics and athletics co-existing in a highly successful atmosphere - the administration there in the past couple of decades, who have been very highly academic personnel, support the football program and have seen it as a very positive and "plus" for the world renowed university and among its peers/colleagues).  No one will ever convince me otherwise (that this can't work) because it simply is just not true - I know because I "lived it" as did many others themselves and who can testify to this. This type of "tug of war" between academic faculty and those (including students) who support athletics (and football specifically) goes all the way back to the beginnings of collegiate football (recall that famed, but ill-thought out comment that Cornell's President said back in the 1890's when he prevented Cornell's team from playing at the Univ. of Michigan..."I refuse to allow the [the students] to travel 400 miles west to merely aggitate a bag of wind"..? .  Seriously, though, the bottom line is that if Calvin's new administration and their trustees (and there have been trustees there who have been in the "non-football support" camp for a long time as most of us know) don't want to take the leadership role in this and make the decision and "buck" the so-called tradition there, then it obviously won't happen and most likely never will.  I'm sure that not all the faculty at Calvin are football haters (I know for a fact they are not), however, the greater number seem to be, as has been reported/shared by many here.  As I and others have said before, if Calvin doesn't add football now, I seriously doubt they ever will and that will be a disappointing aspect, however, of course, their perogative and rights.

I'm told that faculty vote was 30-12 against.

I've always felt that faculty are (ironically) the most undereducated group of college/university stakeholders when it comes to athletics.

[hope_hoops1]

And if the football argument is because of academics, let's see it for what it is.  It's far less intrusive than basketball which is in-season during final exams and even plays games on school nights <gasp>.  Basketball also has the nerve to interfere with job applications, graduate program applications and spans more of an academic calendar year than football.  It's a definite smoke-screen.

Happy Friday all and enjoy the first non-MIAA men's basketball weekend in a while.

[oldknight]

I'm told that faculty vote was 30-12 against.

I've always felt that faculty are (ironically) the most undereducated group of college/university stakeholders when it comes to athletics.

Reminds me of Mark Twain--one of America's most quotable authors--who once mentioned: "We're all ignorant, just about different things."  He also said: "Be thankful for fools. But for them the rest of us could never succeed." I'm thankful every day.

[Roundball999]

Formerd3db, et al.  With all due respect.  My post was simply addressed to a very real  "political" situation that now faces the Calvin board of Trustees. 
Every college or university has it's own set of political games, and players.  I am familiar with the "politics" at Calvin.  Are you?  You might disagree with them, and you might think they are weird, or outdated or naive, but they are what they are.
 
I don't know why any one of the faculty or the faculty collectively did not endorse football.  Knowing some of them I give them credit for listening to the findings, and recommendations, and than making their decision.  I am sure if you or I asked them personally they would share their thoughts. 
My comment was simply addressed to political reality.  Cram football down the faculty/staff's throat, and you will creatte a very negative work environment.  "If I were a trustee", I would think long and hard about going against the faculty senate.
I am not sure how other college's might work, but doubt few of them give the pres. dictatorial powers to "fire the current faculty", and cram football down people's throat.
That just isn't the way Calvin has worked in the past, and doubt it is going to work that way going forward.
FWIW:  Personally I would like to see football at Calvin, but don't think it should be imposed on a faculty that isn't supportive.

Hmmm, interesting that the other stakeholder groups seem to support football, but we should be mostly concerned about a negative work environment for (created by?) the faculty?  Why aren't the faculty concerned about imposing their will on all the other stakeholders?  I've worked at two different universities and I fully understand the faculty dynamic, and you are right in that it is much more common for the faculty to throw the president out than the other way around.  The wonders of tenure, AAUP, and so forth.  We can say "it is what is is" but unfortunately, the faculty don't seem to realize that such intransigence is only hastening fundamental changes in the current higher ed model.  They won't like the coming changes...